Calcutta High Court observed that “heavens won’t fall” if Vande Mataram is sung in madrasas while hearing a PIL challenging a government notification.
Court Questions Objections to Singing the National Song in Educational Institutions
The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday orally observed that “heavens will not fall” if all six stanzas of Vande Mataram are sung in madrasas. The remark came during the hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging a State government notification that makes the rendition of the complete national song mandatory in madrasas across West Bengal.
The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen. The Bench made the observation while hearing submissions advanced by Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, who appeared in support of the PIL.
The petition challenges the legality and constitutional validity of a government notification directing all recognised madrasas in the State to ensure that the complete version of Vande Mataram is sung during institutional programmes. The petitioner has raised concerns over the implementation of the notification and its compatibility with constitutional guarantees, particularly those relating to freedom of religion and minority educational institutions.
During the proceedings, the Bench orally remarked that merely singing the national song in educational institutions should not be viewed as something that would create any extraordinary consequence. “Heavens will not fall” if all six stanzas of Vande Mataram are sung in madrasas, the Court observed, indicating that the issue should be examined with a balanced constitutional perspective rather than through apprehensions or assumptions.
The Court’s oral observation came in response to arguments questioning the necessity and impact of the government’s directive. While making the remark, the Bench did not pronounce upon the final legality of the notification. Instead, it indicated that the matter requires judicial examination on constitutional principles before any final conclusion is reached.
The PIL has drawn attention because it concerns the intersection of constitutional values, educational administration and religious freedoms. Madrasas, many of which are minority educational institutions, enjoy certain constitutional protections under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, questions relating to national symbols and patriotic practices in educational institutions have repeatedly reached constitutional courts across the country.
The petitioner has argued that compelling educational institutions belonging to a particular community to sing the complete version of Vande Mataram raises constitutional concerns. According to the submissions, the State’s notification should be tested against the guarantees of religious freedom under Articles 25 and 26 as well as the rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions.
On the other hand, the issue also touches upon the broader principle of promoting national unity and civic values through educational institutions. Courts in India have, on several occasions, examined whether practices relating to the National Anthem and the National Song amount to reasonable expressions of constitutional patriotism while ensuring that individual rights remain protected.
The Bench’s observation does not amount to a final judicial finding. Oral remarks made during hearings often reflect the Court’s preliminary thoughts or seek clarification from the parties. Such observations are distinct from the final judgment, which is based on detailed legal reasoning after considering all submissions and applicable constitutional provisions.
The matter is expected to involve a detailed examination of the government’s notification, the constitutional framework governing minority educational institutions, and previous judicial precedents dealing with patriotic expressions in schools. The outcome could provide greater clarity on the extent to which the State may prescribe practices relating to the National Song in institutions receiving government recognition or aid.
The proceedings are likely to be closely followed by legal experts, educational institutions and civil society groups because the case raises important questions regarding the balance between constitutional freedoms and measures intended to foster national identity. The High Court’s eventual decision may also serve as guidance for similar disputes involving educational institutions and government directives across the country.
Readers interested in developments relating to constitutional law, education policy and significant court proceedings can explore more updates on The Legal Observer’s homepage, national news section and legal analysis pages. Video explainers on important judgments are also available through The Legal Observer’s official YouTube channel.
As the hearing progresses, the Calcutta High Court is expected to continue examining the competing constitutional claims before determining whether the impugned notification withstands judicial scrutiny. Until then, the Bench’s oral remark that “heavens will not fall” if Vande Mataram is sung in madrasas remains an observation made during the course of arguments and not the Court’s final ruling.
